Who beat better opposition Dempsey or Wills?

I think you would query just about everything I typed Ed

Here are the reports from two of their 1917 fights


"Langford defends his World 'colored' heavyweight title claim
Newspaper decision from the Toledo News-Bee, which reported that the two boxers did their best not to hurt each other and that the referee should have thrown both of them out of the ring."



"Wills won the newspaper decision according to both the Philadelphia Record and the Philadelphia Public Ledger (Paul Zabala). A press service report (Pittsburgh Post) said that Langford and Wills hit each other with "cream-puff blows"



I can't prove these were prearranged, there were no confessions hidden in attics that I'm aware of, but like several of Carnera's fights I believe them to have been, and so did the contemporary press. Wills was not unique in this some of the series between the other black greats had the whiff of prearrangement ,glorified sparring sessions if you like.But you carry on ,you're batting a 1000 on my responses so far:yep

If you want to dispute the consensus perhaps reading Clay Moyle's biography of Langford is indicated?

 

I haven't read the Thompson fight reports but the two Wills Langford fights I posted newspaper comments on were in 1917 ,two years before Dempsey won the title so chronologically that is definitely not the case here.

 

Really? Because I could keep going.

in 1918 Dempsey knocked out Fred Saddy who was his sparring partner. The bout was called a fix by Memphis people and the promoter himself came out and apologized for it. Saddy was a replacement for Jack Mcarthy, Dempsey's original opponent who had been knocked out just a few days earlier under an assumed name. Obviously they were padding Dempsey's record.

Later that summer he faced Tom McCarty who "wasnt in any condition or in any mood to give more for their money -besides he had his meal ticket."

Still later that year Carl Morris was accused of taking a dive against Dempsey after demanding his money up front, going down from a punch nobody saw, and then when the ref counted slow in order to prompt him to get up and give the fans a show he stayed down anyway putting on a bad acting show.

Against Willard some say he used loaded gloves, including his own trainer for the fight.

Ive already mentioned Flynn, Fulton, Levinsky, Carpentier, and Billy Miske. Im sure others can add more. Like I said, I wouldnt be too quick to cast aspersions.

 

It depends on the spin one puts on this. This fight is being criticized for Johnson being overmatched and apparently going out early with his corner throwing in the towel (like McNeeley against Tyson). The source here is a marine publication. Does Wills rival contender Tunney being an ex-marine have something to do with their take?

As for smoke, well, there was a lot of it for almost every major boxing match because there was a powerful lobby to ban boxing by mainly the same folks who managed to ban alcohol. Saying that fights were not on the up and up was a significant, and perhaps the main pillar, of the attack. The argument basically went--if you don't want to ban boxing as a brutal spectacle, it is also crooked and the public is being cheated and so it should be banned anyway.

I remember reading the 1902 San Francisco papers about the Jeffries-Fitz fight and a couple of them took the fix stance, despite Fitz supposedly loading his gloves and beating Jeff into a such a bloody hulk that one reporter wrote that Jeff looked like he had fallen face first into a hay mower.

The Dempsey-Willard loaded gloves story might originally have had the same roots, along with the exaggerations about the damage Willard suffered.

 

Even Dempsey in his 1959 autobiography that I read implied that Morris did not make an honest effort in the 1918 first round knockout.

*I think the thread has gotten derailed. I am sure some overmatched opponents of both men weren't interested in hanging around to soak up punishment. And I am also sure that occasionally the top black fighters eased up on overmatched opponents in their endless rematches. You would have to be a real sadist to want to beat the tar out of a guy you have beaten many times already.

 

Yes, but they might have wanted to reduce Wills stature as a challenger to Willard.

 

In 1917? Why would any reporter be concerned about shielding Willard from black challengers? Not only was he not a popular champion ,he had categorically stated that he would not defend against a black man..


If you're that desperate , you carry on old chap, but Im not buying it.

 

No problem.

But I think that there was still speculation that the top black fighters like Langford and Wills were better than Willard and knocking them might have been natural to the white press.

 

You could keep going if you like but you're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're giving me gossip and during this time their were loads of it. Every fight could have accusations of fix or fighters claiming they tanked it after a poor performance. What I'm listing is that their seems to be enough evidence in many Wills fights that action was taken either by the ref or the state athletic commission. Fights where both combatants were barred from performing again in the state. Or at least one fighter having his purse withheld if not both. Dempsey didn't have as many fights where he was told never to fight again in that state because the bout wasn't believed to be on the level. Now if you want to claim Wills encounters this type of treatment because of the color of his skin I would be very open to that theory. I also perfectly understand if you fight the same opponent ad nauseum there may be a less than stellar performance in the bunch, that would only be natural.

 

A couple of fighters Wills only fought once were accused of being set-ups or of taking dives too. Tut Jackson and Floyd Johnson put on very dubious performances.
And this was during Wills' #1 contender days when he was the popular attraction.

It's a bit patronizing to Harry Wills to try to excuse all his dodgy, fake and fixed fights by recourse to the injustice put on him by white boxers (or their managers).
He was a professional too, and quite capable of 'doing business' in having his own fixed and fake fights.

And sometimes they just agree to take it easy.

 

Some of those fights might well have been fixed. :good
Just as Dempsey's loss to Flynn "might" have been.

 

These fights sound like Mayweather-Pacquiao.

It's weird that in this day and age people put up with this sh!t more than they did back then.

 

No, thats the point. It was all rumor. Guys were prevented or barred from fighting all the time for putting on a poor performance. It happened to Gene Tunney in the same state not once but twice and he still got to win his title there. You either dont understand the context of the times or are selectively bending the facts to suit your argument. As for Tut Jackson he had a famously padded and fictitious record that was denigrated even among his bkack peers. Wills himself was vocal about this. You cant blame Wills for blasting out a fraud who padded his record to get to the big time nor can you fault him for knocking out a Floyd Johnson who was never that good to begin with and who was losing more than he was winning at that point. Thats just nutpicking, and as i said we can do that in equal measure all day long to the "great" jack dempsey.

 

And you have been doing so, not just all day long, but for years.

Many of the people here who attack Dempsey on those lines (which is fair enough) have often never even heard of Wills' own collection of set-ups, or conveniently ignore them.
To many of them Harry Wills is just a stick to beat Dempsey with, and not deserving of his own critical examination. Which is sad.

 

We're not discussing Gene Tunney. As I have stated Wills's fights had more action taken against them than Dempsey fights. If it happened all the time why wasn't Jack barred from cities or thrown out of the ring? I'm not trying to hate on Wills I believe he could of been victim of the times but I do notice that many of his fights have purses withheld or fighters that were barred from fighting. More so than Dempsey fights. Would you disagree?